Pages

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Sometimes I see
hints that the Philippines is changing, that Filipinos are beginning to grasp
the idea that they need not be so very subservient to authority figures who, to
this point, do not have much to brag about in terms of Philippine
competitiveness and reputation in the global community.

This past week a Bloomberg Report summarized the state of the
HR Bill and noted that 34 percent of Filipinas between the ages of 15 and 49
now use some form of birth control device (United Nations report). This is the
same level as in Iraq and Myanmar. I would have expected the percentage to be
much lower. But perhaps the attitude of one woman gives hope that there is a
women's awakening. A Catholic mother of 14 children, diagnosed by doctors at
"at risk" if she had more kids, was lined up to get free birth
control services. You see that, and you see legislators - Philippine authority
figures - just sitting on the HR Bill. They are stuck in the past and it will
take more pushing to uproot them. Like a thoughtful vote next election that
considers how progressive the candidates really are. Those who sound a lot like
preachers and priests should be the first ones ejected.

Wake Up Call

That is EJECTED, not
elected.

Also this past week,
it was reported that a Catholic high school in Cebu tried to ban five girls
from graduation ceremonies for posing on Facebook in bikinis; one had a beer
bottle and cigarette in hand. The parents of one of the girls would not accept
that and took it to court. The court ruled that the school had to let the girls
attend graduation. The girls' parents will also take step two, sue the school
because of the harsh language the administration used in condemning the girls.
Let's hear it for "litigious" as a way to seek a better sense of
right and wrong in the Philippines!

This morning, I read
that six boys have also been banned from graduation by their Catholic high
school because their Facebook pages had photos of them kissing one another. Hey
guys! Not exactly my thing, but way to go! Push the old fogies and prudish maids
off their conventional asses. I hope one of you has a litigious parent.

In yet another
incident, students at several universities shot back at Senator Santiago after
she ranted that surveys regarding Chief Corona's trust standing are a "contemptuous act.” The university students survey their own
student populations periodically. They effectively told the esteemed Senator to
"put a sock in it".
Intelligent, issues-focused, rabble-rousing students is EXACTLY what the
Philippines needs.

These events are
fascinating hints that the Philippines is entering a period of changing values
and soft rebellion.

I've argued that the
Philippines is not a well-read society and Filipinos remain trapped in an
archaic dominant/submissive pattern of behavior that allows corruption and
bullyism to flourish.

But modern media,
specifically the cell phone and internet social networking, are changing the
ground rules. Now previously submissive INDIVIDUALS can find strength in
GROUPS. And do it quickly.

The notion that
government is "Big Brother" has been turned upside down by modern
media in the hands of citizens. That is the foundation for the Arab Spring
uprisings. And perhaps Filipinos are now ready to turn the spotlight onto the
fallibility of previously sacrosanct powers. In the above examples that would
be the Catholic Church, school administrators, and a Senator. All are being
publicly slapped down.

You know, I fully
expect the Senate to acquit Chief Justice Corona. It is a political game they
are playing, the outcome of favors owed and created, and SYSTEMS of favor being
protected. But Senators do this at their own peril in a day when opposing candidates
will soon pull out the record of an opponent and lay it out on twitter or
Facebook.

"This
incumbent Senator voted for acquittal of Chief Justice Corona. Do you
trust him/her to work forthrightly on your behalf?"

Given that 75 to 80
percent of the population does not trust Mr. Corona, that is a powerful
message.

Friday, March 30, 2012

I get challenged
relentlessly for more facts. I whip out my most profound conceptual arguments
or literary gems, and it does not satisfy these people. They want the details.
The evidence. The proof.

It is a Philippine
condition, this obsession with details over construct, but what's a guy to do?
It is exhausting to swim against the tide of Philippine methodology. Never mind
that the factologists have all the facts in the world, but no meaning in which
to put them. That is why there is trash everywhere and people are mowing down
the rainforests and making a deadly Disney log ride out of the Cagayan de Oro
River. The concepts of cleanliness, health and management of resources for the
well-being of all is swapped down the
river for personal convenience.

But let me get to
the facts rather than go on a red-eyed diversionary rant.

The Judicial and Bar
Council ("JBC") is the group of legal professionals who select the
list of approved candidates from which the Executive Branch of government
selects the judge or ombudsman to be given a job.

THE
MEMBERS

The JBC panel is a
bunch of high falootin' factoids I have not fully researched as to their
background, allegiances and objectivity. Some of them I am familiar with and
others, not.

Certainly any future
meetings will be dynamite, given the participation of both Mr. Corona and Ms.
De Lima, who recently referred to the Chief Justice as "a walking
constitutional violation". Throw in Mr. Tupas and Mr. Escudero who were
engaged in the impeachment drama and the tension would be thicker than a
carabao's backside.

But the upshot is,
this group should be able to find worthwhile candidates. These are grown-ups. They represent important
disciplines, private sector to education. They are professionals.

MISSION

The mission
statement of the JBC, issued in 2007, reads well: Link to
Mission

There are five
points, generally reciting the aims and good intent of the JBC's work,
including speeding up the filling of vacancies; the fifth is particularly
noteworthy:

"To
insulate the nomination process from undue influence of any kind."

It must have been
written by attorneys who left in the escape hatch of "undue". Any
influence considered "due" is fully acceptable. This mission is
rather akin to the principles of the Humpty Dumpty New World Dictionary, which
allows the writer to define a word precisely any way he wants.

In other words, ANY
influence is allowed if it is allowed. Like Ms. Arroyo can push and shove and
reject the submitted lists of Chief Justice nominees until it has on it the
person she really wants. NOT that she would ever do that, eh? Try to influence
the independent judiciary. And President Aquino also seems to miss the point
that the judicial process, including that of a Senate trial, ought to be left
alone. Left to stand independent.

I tell you, this
trade of favors, and all the conniving it promotes, is not good for the nation
as a whole. It softens up all the rules of civil behavior and warps them to
personal convenience.

But I digress. Back
to facts.

TRANSPARENCY

In 2002, the JBC
recognized the importance of transparency in its actions through published Rule
10, "Rule to Further Promote Public Awareness and Accessibility to the
Proceedings of the Judicial Bar and Council". You can link over to if you
want to read the whole document: Link
to Rule

The rule states the
goal is a "delicate task" and itemizes a process for announcing a
long list of potential nominees, a complaint-filing period and process, and
public interview schedule. After this is done, the JBC meets in private to
formulate its short list.

THE
RULES

The main principles
by which the JBC operates are spelled out in JBC - 009, "Rules of of the
Judicial and Bar Council" signed on October 18, 2000, by members of the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the managing body for the entire Judiciary,
as well as the interpretive body for the Constitution. Link
to Rules

Let me extract some
factoids that were meaningful to me. You can read the entire thing if you are
interested in the details.

The JBC cites its
Constitutional requirement to nominate people "of proven competence,
integrity, probity, and independence." I had to look up
"probity". It means "adherence to the highest principles and
ideals"; synonyms are character, decency, goodness, honesty, integrity,
morality, rectitude, righteousness, rightness, uprightness, virtue,
virtuousness. The only better character than a judge would be Jesus Himself.

Rules 1 and 2
contain guidelines for number of years a candidate has been a judge or lawyer,
and the administrative process and timeframes for filling vacancies.

Rule 3 gets down to
business. It deals with competency. The four main criteria are:

Experience: Laundry lists of the types
of government service and private service experiences to consider.

Performance: The applicant needs to
submit his performance ratings and verified statement for the last three
years. Established judges need to submit information on landmark decisions
penned, caseload, number of cases submitted, number appealed and number of
appeals confirmed.

Other
Accomplishments:
Authorship of legal texts, articles, professional organizations and the
like.

I was impressed with
the "Performance" data requirements and wonder if there are
benchmarks anywhere against which to compare. The idea is correct, to get
performance down to measurable standards. But what is considered "good
performance" versus "bad
performance"? I know workload in the courts is heavy (300,000 backlogged
cases), there are many judicial vacancies, but also that processes are
burdensome and inefficient (a personal experience of it taking four laborious
hearings to get a ruling on one annulment request). The time in court for some cases is not
measured in weeks or months, but years.

Rule 4 deals with
integrity and instructs the JBC to "take every possible step" to
confirm "irreproachable" conduct. NBI and other government agencies
are checked. Background checks may be ordered, testimonies received and
complaints considered. There is a list of "disqualifications"
including

"pending
criminal or regular administrative cases". Note
that the applicant does not have to be found guilty; if he has a case pending
he is disqualified.

Rule 5 deals with
testimony and evidence to confirm probity. Rule 6 requires that the candidate
be in good physical and emotional condition. The JBC can order that psychiatric
tests be conducted. Rule 7 allows JBC members to interview prospective candidates
and submit written reports. Rule 8 requires that candidates for the Supreme
Court be given in-depth review, and eliminates from consideration candidates
who are really old. Rule 9 cites requirements for applicants to the Appeals
Court and Sandiganbayan.

Rule 10 states that
a majority of all members shall make the determination as to acceptability of a
nominee.

JoeAm's
EVALUATION

The words are good,
the requirements rigorous. The JBC members are diversified and esteemed. One
failing, I suppose, in a society that goes by favors, is the tendency to permit
outside pressures to have bearing, such as that exerted by Ms. Arroyo to get the
candidate she wanted. Furthermore, the simple majority vote decision allows a
politically unbalanced panel to approve candidates of a consistent view,
conservative or liberal, or in one oligarch's camp or another. This can
dramatically affect the tenor of rulings if the court gets pushed toward a
clear bias.

I was impressed at
the rigor of the statistical requirement for consideration of established
judges: caseload, cases submitted, appeals, and appeals confirmed. I wonder,
without prejudice, as to the discipline and comprehensiveness of the use of
such statistics in daily operation of the courts. Are standards published
anywhere? And performance against the standards? Are they actually APPLIED?
More research is needed in this area to determine if the statistics are
dependable and used rigorously.

Finally, I note that
EVEN THE IMPRESSION of possible guilt is enough to remove a candidate from
consideration. If a case is pending against him, he is disqualified. The
concept of "innocent until found guilty" does not apply to judicial
appointments. And for a reason. Probity.

If the standard as
to APPEARANCE of propriety is given weight, just as ACTUAL propriety is given
weight, then the bar to find an impeached judge "guilty" would be set
very low.

It is rather like
the advice I give my wife. If the fish smells funny, throw it out.

The JBC rules are
very clear. Judges are to be honorable BEYOND QUESTION. The Judiciary remains
independent, respected and above reproach only if its judges are of the highest
character.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

.
. . through a flick in the warp of time, the news headline you may have
missed . . . from the Palace in Manila .
. .

ABE
LINCOLN APPOINTED CHIEF JUSTICE BY PRESIDENT ARROYO!

Here is a transcript
of Mr. Lincoln's acceptance statement:

MR.
LINCOLN:

Mrs. President, Your
Excellency, I am greatly pleased by your confidence in my judicial
capabilities. Never under the candlelight of my log cabin did I imagine such an
honor would be mine to cherish.

I am concerned, of
course, that the appointment so late during your term will be seen as
politically motivated by many. This may place the integrity of the court in
danger and cast doubt on those rulings in which I have a voice. Preservation of
the court's standing as an esteemed, impartial panel is one of the most
important obligations we have. So this
is of no small concern.

On the other hand, I
am a humble servant of the people and believe I can bring stability and
professionalism to the courts of this nation. I believe I can provide
leadership that will be respected by the courts and the people.

It is therefore with
deep humility that I accept your appointment.

However, it is only
fair that I inform you that if ever it should occur that my integrity would
fall into question, I would be obligated to tender my resignation. It is too
important to this nation that its top judicial office be fully dedicated to
both the appearance and the reality of impartiality.

Trust is the bedrock
of justice, assuring citizens that every decision is fair and based strictly on
the law. The term "Your Honor" must mean something.

This principle is
much more important than one man's job, or even his reputation.

I look forward to
beginning work. You may be assured that I will strive earnestly for the
betterment of our great nation.

MRS.
ARROYO:

Thank you Abe. Your
humility, selflessness and integrity stand as shining beacons of light for the
entire free world.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Well, I see today
that Noynoying has gone viral. The three photos I reproduce here were published
at globalvoicesonline.org.

I think the Aquino
Administration threw fire on the fad by hustling up photos of the President
hard at work.

I'm amused by the
whole thing. The lesson I draw from it is that the Filipino sense of humor
often lacks the finery of more broadly read societies. It lacks an appreciation
of satire and what is referred to as "self-deprecating" humor where a
person makes a joke at his own expense. Jokes hereabouts seem mainly to center
on sex and interpersonal fallibility. You know, ridicule.

Self deprecation
turns ridicule on its ear, and negates it.

What a different
reaction we might have had if Mr. Aquino, instead of getting uptight, had
"struck a lazy pose" for the cameras, showing that he "gets
it", that he enjoys the fun people are having at his expense.

Like, this is not a
coup people are staging. It is hilarious, harmless fun. Rather like all the
different takes on "It's more fun in the Philippines". Indeed, it
gives Mr. Aquino character. Not a sneaky character, like Ms. Arroyo, but a
somewhat affable, lazy character. Likeable, if handled correctly.

I'm wracking my
brain trying to remember the name of the famous advertising agency executive in
the United States who made the point that even a lot of BAD publicity is good
publicity because it gets your name out there broadly and often for free. He
died, but his lessons live on.

The Philippines is
not a bookworm society, in the main. I think the internet is opening up a whole
new range of humor, though. And I suspect an increasing share of the educated
population will develop new ways to laugh.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Another commenter on
a different blog site said I had a "lazy brain", mainly because I did
not upchuck back to him all the evidence in the Corona trial to justify my
claim that he ought to be found guilty. That is an interesting charge. That I am
lazy of mind.

I rather think the
"lazy" charge means something like, "because you don't think
like me" attached to it. Because I know my brain is not lazy, and
comprehends things better than most.
I've got two college degrees, a stint in the army, three marriages, four
kids, 30 years in corporate management at a senior level, donated time to
charity, read relentlessly, can program computers, have traveled to 21
countries around the world, have more money than 95% of Americans and 99.9% of
all Filipinos.

But my brain is
lazy?

But, okay, for the
fun of it, and to have a topic to write about this morning, I'll accept the
charge. Indeed, I am on occasion inclined to go with the easy opinion rather
than dredge up facts. But that does not mean my brain is not working. Indeed,
it may be working on writing to express a complex concept in terms that others
don't find. Or it may mean I am researching the tension between Aquinaldo and
Dewey to gain a better understanding of the roots of the Philippine American
war rather than researching Gloria Arroyo or her party or the representatives
who are aligned with her, or against her, and their pedigree.

So, yes, my brain is
"lazy", or not active, in the subject arena where that particular
critic excels.

I am lazier than a
lot of people hereabouts.

I am lazier than benigno, who
can pen a sentence more profoundly than anyone I've met in the
Philippines. He also operates better than me at pursuing agendas, being
arrogant and keeping his motives hidden. So I am lazier in those regards,
too.

I am lazier than Doy Santos,
who understands the Philippine economy way better than I ever will.

I am lazier than Mariano who
has the eye of a hawk and the satirical humor of Jonathan Swift, using his
time in the U.S. to shine a light back on the Philippines with wit and
wisdom.

I am lazier than Cocoy at
having mature, responsible values. I swear like a pig heading to the
fiesta, never go to church, and sometimes get really overbearing and
obnoxious.

I am lazier than
manuelbuencamino who has lived a lifetime engaging with and writing about
Philippine political and social events, gaining awareness of both history
and social structure and how they meld as the Philippine condition.

I am lazier than Macapili who
knows the Philippine American War as if he had lived it. And he can show
you the photos, too.

I'm way lazier than
parallelaxe, who can parse someone else's writing and write lies about it
better than absolutely anyone. I am way lazier at using the insult as a
basis for winning arguments. I'm sure in a prior life he was a fighting
chicken.

I'm lazier than Ilda and
proud of it.

I'm lazier than Chief Justice
Corona. I could never engage with a dozen attorneys and maintain my
sanity.

I'm lazier than Attila who
actively engages with Filipinos whilst I largely hide from them.

I'm lazier than most, in some way.

But I double dog
dare you to work as hard as I do at thinking around corners and getting the
ideas into print with a twist or two. You know, fomenting original thought with
style instead of regurgitating someone else's ideas in dry, humorless words.
Trying to understand things and provoke thinking rather than needing to hammer
everyone else into a bucket of wobbly self esteem.

I work damn hard at
that.*
_______________

Humpty
Dumpty New World Dictionary. "damn hard" is a an adverbial
phrase, a satirical twist on the expression "not very hard",
used mainly by retired people who are having fun rummaging about the world
protecting their brains from atrophy.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Important job qualification
standards: capability and performance. Not who you know.

It
seems unrelated, but first let's look at secrecy in the Philippines, or the
enduring need to hide private acts from government investigators.

The
U.S. Department of State has identified 66 nations as major drug laundering
countries. The Philippines is one of the countries, which is not of itself
particularly noteworthy, as Singapore, Canada, France, Germany and Italy are
also on the list. But the report criticizes an inadequate judicial system as a
part of the problem and that connects directly to the Corona impeachment.

Here
is a part of the State Department's commentary regarding the Philippines:

“lack of
law enforcement resources, the slow pace of judicial and investigative
reforms and lack of law enforcement inter-agency cooperation continue to
hamper government efforts to investigate and prosecute higher echelons of
drug trafficking organizations operating in the Philippines.”

The
report also details how it is difficult to act quickly on information that
requires information from Philippine bank accounts, even in the case of
terrorism, because the strict bank secrecy laws require stages of court orders
to gain access to account information.

WHO DO YOU TRUST?

I
suspect this will become a major point of tension between the U.S. and
Philippines as the Philippines seeks U.S. weaponry and military training
assistance. The U.S. has been working hard, and successfully, to gain access to
Swiss bank accounts where American tax evaders like to stow their money. My
guess is that attention will now turn to the Philippines. The U.S. does not
give away money or equipment without self-interested strings attached.

The
crime-friendly judicial and law-enforcement policies and strict bank secrecy
laws in the Philippines protect criminals other than drug launders and tax
evaders; they protect crooks who engage in Illegal kickbacks, bribes,
extortions, or misuse of government funds.

One
giant leap from dot to dot leads us to the impeachment trial of Chief Justice
Corona.

Mr.
Corona evidently does not see the connection between his acts and his poor
trust ratings. He and his backers instead reach for excuses, such as
"trial by media" or political vendetta by President Aquino rather
than grasp that trust is not easily won, but is easily lost.

The
decisions that Mr. Corona has made undermined trust, and nothing more. His acts
are astounding considering that he is an intelligent and educated professional.
He should have understood the likely outcomes of his acts:

accepting a midnight
appointment from a very unpopular president,

attacking a popular sitting
president in a political letter,

failing (so far) to reveal
his dollar assets,

issuing an SALN that appears
erroneous and is certainly not comprehensible, and

requiring a battery of a
dozen attorneys who relentlessly pick at legalistic points during the
trial.

It looks like he is hiding, and only he is
responsible for these decisions. The media are not. President Aquino is not.

These
may not be explicit law violations, but they go directly to the heart of Mr.
Corona's qualifications to be Chief Justice. He has evidently not considered or
been given the advice: be forthright and truthful.

Perhaps
it is dangerous for him to be forthright and truthful.

Frankly,
it is not easy to trust a man who hides so relentlessly, and, considering the
talents of his legal team, so eloquently.

The
problem is that trust is critically important if he is to perform the job he is
assigned. A lack of trust makes it difficult for a judge to adjudicate cases
while holding the respect of counsel for both the plaintiff and defense. Any
hint of favoritism will undermine his standing.

Perhaps
the defense will find a way to resurrect his trust. My guess is they would have
to be clearer about his SALN, reveal his dollar assets, and allow him to
testify so the people can hear that he is mature and objective, not emotional
and political. If he is the latter, he is toast, trustwise.

Back
to the start of this article. If the Philippines wishes to see top-grade
investment ratings and generous U.S. aid, it would behoove the nation to look
at U.S. State Department report and embark on steps to show that it is as
dedicated to law enforcement as it is to protecting individual privacy. The
balance today favors the crooks.

Mr.
Corona is behaving as a crook would be expected to behave. That is why his
trust ratings are low. Whether or not he is guilty of any crimes, he amply
broadcasts the APPEARANCE of guilt.

It
will be interesting to see if the Senate will allow a Chief Justice with a 14%
trust rating to continue to represent the Philippines, for all that this means
domestically and internationally. The Senate trial is a political process, not
a legal process. The trust rating goes directly to the point of whether or not
Mr. Corona has the proper credentials to do a job in which trust is of
paramount importance.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Or
"tried", either works, as it is consistent with the pro-Corona
complaints of late that the Chief Justice is being tried in the media instead
of the courtroom.

Ok, let's dig into
this a little.

First of all, if the
Chief Justice is being tried in the media, how come I am coming away with the
impression that the prosecuting attorneys are a bunch of stumblebums who could
not cite or abide by legal guidelines if those guidelines were etch-a-sketched
into their crania? Indeed, they may end up being principals to acquittal. And
how come I see these Senators like Santiago doing all they can do to taint the
prosecution's case?

Now, if the case
were held behind closed doors, I would not be receiving these messages. Nor
would any of us catch our representatives (like the esteemed Ms. Santiago,
again) off on a bizarre rant as if she were the queen of hearts and the rest of
us were jacks and Joses beneath her dignity, to be axed at her whim. Nor would
we see the wisdom of that icon of Philippine dignity, Senator Enrile, expertly
tread the line between the law and the gamesmanship that Senators and attorneys
are inclined to like. Nor would we see the defense in the capable hands of the
best attorneys money can buy in the Philippines.

What, exactly, are
these people complaining about? They are whiners, I would estimate, clearly
Filipino, practicing the art of denying responsibility for any untoward event.
As if we were supposed to accept without objecttion anything the defense
proposed or said.

If there were a
Nobel prize for excuse-making, the first awardee, and maybe the first 100,
would be Filipino. And these pro-Corona people deserve nomination first.

Oh, I know, they are
complaining because the Inquirer is
owned by someone in the Aquino family. They are complaining, I guess, that
media in the Philippines are not diversified, and there are no countervailing
opinions available in the Star, or ABS-CBN, or the Manila Star Gazette Herald
Tribune. They are ALL anti-Corona! That whole armload of newspapers the vendors
in the median strips of the Manila highways are peddling are anti-Corona, and
were from the getgo!

It is just so
unfair!

They are complaining
because poor old (I don't use the term loosely) Benigno and Ilda can't carry
the load all by themselves to report the truth of the matter, that Mr. Corona
is being railroaded, and the rest of us are idiots. And they have the double burden
of carrying Mrs. Arroyo's baggage, too, as she resides in house arrest, I guess
put there by GMA-5 and the state television channel all the other slanted media
of the Philippines.

I tell you, this
idea of democracy is a bummer. We should let the pro-Corona totalitarians run
things. They have better ideas than the rest of us. Are more connected to the
truth. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that Mr. Corona has a trust rating of,
what, 11% according to Pulse Asia, while Mr. Aquino's is 64%. Then, the nerve
of those rating agencies to screw up and report that Mr. Aquino's ratings are
DOWN from last month. The Aquino family must not be paying them enough.

In less sarcastic
terms, my impression is that Philippine media are wonderfully diverse. I've
thought that since I arrived on scene in 2005. I've been impressed with the
variety of print media in particular. I've read articles on about every
different point of view on just about any major subject. I've even had a couple
of my letters to the editors published when I disagreed with a commentary.

I do agree that
Philippine media are much like sharks. They like blood in the water. Or blood
on the screen in the form of the latest murder victim or crash victim or
drowning victim. Sensationalism may indeed be thrusting Mr. Corona headlong
where he does not want to be, on the front page, or lead story. He would prefer
to be where his dollar accounts are, hidden from public view and not available
for inspection.

How sweet that would be.

Not exactly the
transparency the rest of us would like to see, but sweet for him. Not exactly
free press, prized by most of the civilized world. But, what the hey . . .

Say! I have an idea
for the complainers.

Do something
constructive. Work with your powerful colleagues and get new media regulations
passed. Create a communications agency like the FCC in the States and give up
on this unregulated model that has the media policing themselves. Demand that concentrations of media ownership
be broken up. Work for diversification of media, as a law, as a principle. Stop
this incessant whining , the 115th dialect of the Philippines and soon to
supplant Tagalog as the primary language hereabouts.

And while you are
working on new media regulations, how about getting the regulator to cut the
number of commercials a TV station is allowed to insert in a taped Pacquiao
fight. And have them ban the cranking up of volume during commercials. Those
things really irritate me.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

I reported the other
day that we got a dog. So for a week now, I and he have been bonding, master to
animal. I'm sure he is a Filipino German Sheppard because he is rather stubborn
about some things. Like if there is a "slipper" (sandal) in the
neighborhood, he will chew it to shreds no matter how many times he has been
told "no". And he will eat the crap that comes from the kitchen
drainage pipe no matter how often he has been yanked away and scolded.

This morning I
observed my wife's brother trekking out for his early morning duty of feeding
his fighting chicken. He lives in the house at the other side of our property,
along with my wife's mother.

I've never owned a
fighting chicken, but I've owned dogs.

Americans tend to
ascribe human qualities to their dogs. Most pamper the animals, talking to
them, feeding them, keeping them bathed and clean. In the U.S., dogs often have
the run of the house. My ex-girlfriend, a veterinarian, would allow her poodle
to sleep on the bed with us. She argued that dogs are cleaner than humans, and
I believe her. After all, she is now rich, and so is her dog, and here I am,
sucking my income off Uncle Sam.

Dogs in the
Philippines also have the run of the house, but that is often because there is
no door. And fleas are just another bug that poor people have to deal with.

The dogs here are
not very well cared for. Well, other than receiving the garbage for food, they
are usually not cared for at all.

But the chickens
are.

They get vitamins
and a little house and personal
attention and are trained for their occupation, to kill other chickens.

That's what I don't
comprehend, and maybe a reader can help me out.

I humanize my dogs.
Care for them, love them, get loved back. Do Filipino men care for their
chickens that way? You know, do they bond at the heart?

If so, how can they
send them into the fighting ring knowing there is a 50/50 chance the bird will
come out dead?

I'd never send my
dog into a fight. Certainly not to one where odds were even I'd have to get out
a shovel and bury him. And my hungry neighbors would certainly not be allowed
to dine on his carcass.

I deduce that
Filipinos simply don't extend their feelings to animals at all. Not to dogs,
not to chickens. Hell, based on the rudeness everywhere, I'm not sure they
extend their feelings to other people.

Yet that is what
distinguishes the higher order of human from the lower order of animal, is it
not? The ability to conceptualize and figure things out, to know that kindness
is good and courtesy honorable? That's why we are the superior animal, except
for cockroaches and ants who will be here long after the nuclear holocaust.

I look at the
Republican primary in the United States and I'd say those of us claiming to
belong to mankind have not progressed very far on the progressiveness scale.
The deceits, outright lies, manipulations and lack of respect shown other
supposedly upstanding, honorable men is astounding. It's down and dirty. No
holds barred. Cut throat. Rather like fighting chickens in the ring, now that I
think about it clearly.

The Corona trial is
another cock pit, women welcome.

We are more animal
than human, in many respects. Bowing to base motivations like dominance and
cunning. A cross I suppose between an elephant and a fox. Dominance and cunning
and even nasty, ruthless violence. What animal best represents that? A hyena? The
results of our murderous tendencies are broadcast daily. Who can question that
somewhere in our genetic code is an easy disposition to kill?

Well, I think we
have to simply try a little harder to recognize principles that allow us to
claim an honorable place above animals. We have to try a little harder to stick
to those principles, even if the weight of other people's opinions and acts
goes against us. We have to do better. Better than uttering lies, knowingly.
Better than lying to ourselves.

Right now, I think
dogs, and possibly even chickens, are more honorable than man.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Some words are hard
to grab onto with the human brain. Like "esoteric". The word is so
fuzzy that it is like steam, impossible to hold onto.

I was a mathematics
major in college. I went down that track because in high school I was good
at algebra, geometry and trigonometry
and, yes, calculus. But about halfway through my junior year at Colorado State
University, the math courses went deeply theoretical. Here's my very last
mathematics course:

"Tensor
Analysis with Applications to Mechanics of Continua"

Huh?

You tell me what it
means, because I never learned. I was in a classroom with 8 students from India
who coexisted at some raised theoretical plane between here and Jupiter.
Tensors have something to do with multi-dimensional vectors. A vector is like
an arrow as I understand it. Like, forces on bridge beams follow these little
arrows. I have no idea what a sixth dimensional arrow looks like, much less an
nth dimensional arrow. I have a
three-dimensional brain.

The professor was
high on compassion and gave me a "C" (average grade) for simply
having the courage to show up with my blank face every day and stutter
unintelligibly when he called on me. I think he knew I was going to teach young
kids, not become a math theoretician. I later found out I was wrong, that high
schoolers, too, think in strange dimensions. So I joined the army.

But I am off topic
already.

One word that seems
to be hard to grasp for Filipinos is "responsibility".

Like, it simply is
not practiced anywhere here. People never apologize for anything because a
screw-up is not their fault. Ever. The blame-mongering and excuse-mongering
here is exquisite. Elegant. Refined. Masterful. The victim card is played more
often than the Ace of Spades. The 115th dialect of the Philippines is the
whine.

The top moral
authority in the land, the Catholic Church, claims no responsibility for
anything. Not poverty, not corruption, not upside down values. Nothing. Zero.
Zip. Nil.

Philippine airlines
are not allowed to add flights to the U.S. because of poor maintenance
practices nationwide. Please tell me who is responsible.

It seems like no one
is ever responsible for anything.

Considering how
screwed up most things are, that is an amazing feat.

Everything is
screwed up. No one is responsible.

Gadzooks, it is a
nation of magicians.

Why, I wonder, you
never hear a Filipino say:

"I am responsible for what
happens."

"The buck stops with me
on this one."

"I understand the risks
and if it goes south, I'll accept blame."

I presume it has to
do with saving or building face. In addition, the swapping of favors tends to
bend the rules so that the standards for anything are soft and mushy. We see
that in the Corona case. Proving that his SALN was done illegally is like trying
to nail a block of Jello to the wall.

So in the
Philippines, the individual is skilled at saving face and denying
responsibility. And the social framework is soft and mushy, never allowing
responsibility to be assigned to any one.

The only problem is
that progressive development demands explicit assignment of responsibility and
clear accountability for achievement. You assign a salesman a specific dollar
sales target. You don't send him out and tell him to do his best.

When will some brave
soul in the Philippines, an opinion maker
. . . leader of the Church,
Congressman or Cabinet Head . . . summon up the courage to step forward and
say, "I am responsible for X"?

When will citizens
of the Philippines be mature enough to allow that person to make a mistake on
one thing without declaring him a failure on all things?

When will Filipinos
aspire toward, and reach, the dimension of self-confidence that requires no
apology, not because they never make mistakes, but because making mistakes is
what people who are working hard, on occasion, are expected to do?

It seems to me only
"do nothings" are mistake free. Yes, yes. And Filipinos.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Many Filipinos have
this idea that America is a warmongering nation, drawing its guns before
thinking, going after oil or nation building.
I happen to have a different perspective, that America enters wars to
save other nations (Europe and Asia in WW II) and protect itself. It acquires
no territory. It does free corrupt countries to trade oil in open markets
rather than for the enrichment of abusive dictators.

So I view the
"warmonger" tag as a compliment.

The U.S. wages war
better than any other nation, and has done so for over 100 years now. It is a
combination of superior technology, superior productive might, and superior
commitment and sacrifice by its soldiers, who believe so deeply in the American
promise: freedom and opportunity.

So I tag the
Philippines as a warmongering nation with intent to compliment. It is one of
the Aquino Administration's successful and progressive acts. Superb foreign
policy. Building up fighting capabilities.

There are those who
ridicule the Philippine military because, as we know, ridicule is something
Filipinos are skilled at. And even outsiders such as myself levied ridicule
before the Philippines started on the path of building its equipment and
skills, leaning on the U.S. as a valuable partner rather than ranting and
raving about the VFA and bullyism from America.

You see, Mr. Aquino
is pragmatic.

He treads a delicate
line with China well, standing firm on Philippine rights to territory within
U.N. sanctioned Philippine waters. Yet using the leverage that it is both in
Chinese and Philippine interests to maintain a growing trade alliance. This alliance
means more than spats over land. And the Philippines also plays its "U.S.
card" to let China know that military bullyism simply won't work.

It is a masterful
approach.

Today, the
Associated Press reported that the Philippine air force has started using
sophisticated American guided bomb technology to go after the Abu Sayyaf
murderous thugs. Recently, U.S. drones were sent out to find a terrorist camp
in the jungle and Philippine airplanes dropped four GPS-guided bombs on the
camp at night. Deadeye strike. Several top leaders presumed dead. Infrared
imaging after the strike confirmed about a dozen bodies hauled out of the camp.

Surgical. No army or
air force troops put in harm's way.

Working with this
equipment is something the Philippine air force has been practicing, with U.S.
mentors, for weeks.

It is an outcome of
the pragmatic approach the Aquino administration has taken in working with the
U.S. And his position on U.S. bases is clear: no permanent bases, but the U.S.
is welcome to bring its ships to port for servicing.

He has asked for
American jets and built into the strategic budget room to maintain 24 aircraft.
The U.S. will determine if planes will be made available. They would allow the Philippines to muster a
quick response if Chinese boats were again to harass Philippine oil exploration
efforts.

It is obvious that
the Philippines will attack no one. It is an offensive threat to no one. But it
is also evident to terrorists and Chinese bullies that the nation will protect
its interests in a forceful way.

Kudos to the Aquino
government for its rational foreign policy and for starting a program to build
a respectable defense capability.

It is what can be
done if monies are no longer siphoned off into corrupt hands.

It could have been
done under the Arroyo Administration. But she clearly had other objectives.
Like buying loyalty across the nation. Congressmen, judges, generals,
governors, businessmen and local politicians such as the Ampatuans, who got
their arsenals somehow, some way, from government coffers.

It is refreshing to
see clear, forceful Philippine acts.

Welcome to the arena
of warmongering excellence. You are just a baby right now. But this is what
your military needs to do. It need not sit around planning coups when it can
develop a modern fighting capability.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

I visit the Get Real Post ("GRP") blogsite from time to time, more lately than before.
There exists a certain arrogance of bearing there that is bothersome, but a lot
of the articles are pertinent to what interests me: the Philippines and the
ways of its institutions and citizenry.

The site is fresh
and current, publishing an article or more a day. These days the main theme is
the Corona trial. Understandable I suppose, though it is tending toward
pedantic repetitious observations. The site has a good range of commentary from
readers, with the usual bullying from the anti-Aquino gangstas.

Every publisher has
his principles, and often the editorial slant that can be some distance from
the middle of the road. In the U.S., Fox News
is perhaps the best example, claiming to be "fair and balanced" while
hosting a cast of conservative commentators. The counterbalance is CNBC, which shades liberal. The Wall Street Journal is clearly pro-business. Consumers Union Report . . . well, it is for
consumers all the way. I don't know the biases of the Philippine media, but I
understand the Inquirer is within the
Aquino family tree somewhere.

The GRP editorial slant is anti-President Aquino.
Staunchly, with insults being levied against those who support the President.
"Yellow Zombie" is perhaps the favorite tag of the GRP gangstas who comment regularly. GRP is also critical of the generalized
Filipino, the common man, who contributes to the enduring problems of the
Philippines. Me too, so I can't complain too much about that.

I've argued now and
then that being unduly critical of the President makes the Philippines appear
as it has appeared to outsiders for years: unstable. The argument back from GRP people is that they are doing their
patriotic duty to criticize him, and they indeed are loyal to the Office of the
President, but not the "incompetent" who is holding the job now.

Well, we all look at
things through the tint of glasses we wear, that tint built up by whatever
experiences we have had. If the Hacienda Luista somehow represents a bad symbol
to us, then, of course our glasses will stain the President with that interpretation,
whether he had anything to do with it or not. He is a part of that family. Or
if we saw his mother as an angel for helping to pull the Philippines out of the
clutches of a dictator, then our tint might indeed be yellow, her color.

And some tints are
shaded by agenda. It is hard to peg exactly what the GRP agenda is, but the hard anti-Aquino slant is so pronounced
that there has to be one. I suspect it is fame and if there is any money in it,
that, too. Maybe sensationalism to drive audience up. Or else there is a
political motive to it. Maybe President Aquino cancelled a project they were
involved in, or they are getting even for 2010 (their candidate lost and they
must defend their position or lose face; they are, after all, Filipino, with
all the sensitivities attached to being face-bound) or they are positioning for
2016 to make sure the continuity of Aquino's party is broken.

Or they just like
being a part of a mob. It is a place to belong.

Certainly, the
writers do not approach it patriotically, supporting the President on behalf of
stability in the Philippines while criticizing his decisions or acts that they
consider non-constructive, and presenting alternatives. The site content is
decidedly not balanced and not objective
and you get the feeling that if they could yank the President out of his office
mid-term, they would. They would view that as constructive for the Philippines.

It is what happens
when you commit to a view that is not objective. In defense of that view, you
edge evermore to the brink of extremism. GRP
is there. Pushed to the edge by the need to defend an indefensible
position. They've been two-years
arguing, edging into harder and harder positions, farther and farther from the
center.

GRP demonstrates the same impatience as a
coup-master. The same failure to understand the individual sacrifice that is
built into the democratic model; the need to accept the consequences of someone
of a different political persuasion holding office if they win an election. In
that regard, they are undisciplined rabble rousers, wild-eyed radicals.

The argument from
the site is that EVERYTHING the President does is wrong or bad. Well, that is
so bizarre that it takes credibility to zero. Its as if they can't look at the
strengthening of the peso or higher investment ratings or inflow of investment money
and call it like it is: good for the Philippines. They can't see a need for
aggressive action to end corruption; it won't be done on a gauzy wish or
heartfelt hope or by tearing down a President and starting from scratch.

To the GRP stalwarts, the Aquino glass is completely
empty.

This extremist view
forces them into awkward positions. They end up criticizing the impeachment of
the Chief Justice even if his SALN contains potential law-breaking omissions
worthy of trial. They express no new ideas about how to end corruption. They don't
acknowledge that the President is working to fulfill a campaign promise. And they are forced into what I consider a
humiliating predicament, defending former President Arroyo. Maybe the principal
writers have some connection to that lady and her husband who seem to represent
the worst of the old-school Philippines, rich people who are the architects and
beneficiaries of the favor-trading that defines a corrupt republic. I don't know. To the GRP people, it is the ministers of justice in the Philippines
who are wrong. Like the Occupy people in the U.S. somehow twist exorbitant CEO
salaries into a reason to attack police.

They criticize the
corrupt Philippines, but argue on behalf of corrupt people and against the
President who is trying to change things.

It's crazy. It makes
no sense. There is no intellectual integrity to all this.

I have a suggestion
for the GRP people. Stop acting like
old-school Filipinos. Start working on the next election. Work within the
framework of the democratic process and organize instead of whine. Work on
building the Philippines instead of continuing this incessant tear-down approach
that we see in local envy-driven political spats (Ampatuan) to the inter-family
rivalries in Manila to the crusty old generals yapping for a coup. This bitter
carping is what distinguishes the Philippines as a Banana Republic and
represents the GRP rabble raisers as
little more than bananas with a keyboard.

It is what
traditionally supplants the Delta Drive in the Philippines. Ego over effort.
Self interest over national interest. Same o same o: self-dealing oligarchs,
common ineffective Filipinos and GRP gangstas.

It is the same
recommendation I would give the Occupy anarchists. Get organized, get legal,
and put your people into office.

If you fail, work
HARDER. Raise more money, get more publicity and get your guy into office. Or
little lady, I don't care. Don't participate in the acts that prove this is a
Banana Republic without the discipline to deal with democratic choices, without
the self-sacrifice and honor (like, sportsmanship) it takes to concede to other
political persuasions who WON, fair and square.

Don't spend years
throwing toys against the wall because Mommy didn't give you a Twinkie.